Tom_W1987 - Member
Medicine isn't physics, they don't have phase I through to III trials and never will. They develop models and then try to match it to observable reality, so far these models have been pretty accurate.

Obviously not, and no they haven't.

Unless of course you are suggesting that we wait 100 years to check to see if our models are correct before we make a decision, which of course would be completely **** idiotic.

Did I say that? No, I said exactly the opposite. Act now, but be prepared to revise opinion.

Seriously hope you're not a doctor, or worse a biologist. I could deal with a doctor having a low intellect....

The problem with discussing complex things like climate change with people like irc is that there is no way deniers have the will (or even capacity) to change their stance. Consequently, when the discussion ends, they'll still think they won and are correct because their own position was unchanged

I suppose you could say that about those who agree that humans are changing the climate, but the difference is that all the data is on their side, whereas irc demonstrates a trait of wilful ignorance by cherry-picking one year.

And bigndaft, ask who benefits as much as you like. I answered quite clearly on my earlier post. It's not m fault you failed to read it.

I arrived at a position of agreeing with the scientific consensus on climate change by reading peer reviewed scientific papers and a broad range of the reputable press.

It was notable while at university that my engineering professors also agreed with the scientific consensus. I noticed this because I went to university partly to become part of the solution, working as an engineer in the hydro-electric industry.

I may sound self righteous and smug, but there you go!

I do believe people who deny ACG are up there with flat earthers and creationists.

picking a single year as the benchmark for measuring any climate change shows a pathetic level of understanding.

I didn't, I asked for an answer to the question

the data shown in the graph shows an anomaly year and a step change rise in the mean level that the "cyclic" variation then moves around but there is a plateau in the rise

what is interesting is why this could be happening, is it CO2 related or other factors.

Hence the question

Peter Lilley asked: “Since 1997, the amount of CO2 emitted by mankind is a third of all CO2 that mankind has emitted. And there has been no statistically significant rise in the surface temperature. Does that increase, decrease or leave unchanged your confidence that the scale of warming will be as high as previously thought?”

is actually a reasonable one and one that any curious person would want to ask, but as pointed out in the sketch the argument is so polarised that to ask the question is to become a "denier"/ heretic

Peter Lilley may get paid by the oil men, Tim Yeo gets paid by the renewables industry "cui bono" still applies

and the witness did not answer the question nor accept that there has been a "pause"

Have the concentrations of co2 in the atmosphere home up by a third since that time?

how many Chinese coal/gas fired power stations have been commissioned since 1997?

Why should I believe what some politician says anyway? The same Peter Lilley who gets paid £70,000 a year by the oil industry? Where's his evidence for this?

I imagine if the fact was bogus he would be lynched by the devout, has anyone come out and said his fact is wrong?

epa graph here (to 2008)

Why are you asking us complex modelling questions and not the climatologists? You afraid of the answer?

Peter Lilley asked the question of a (on her LinkedIn page) "Expert in the science of weather and climate" she didn't answer him

so as STW is always the font of all knowledge I opened it out to the forum

Lilley's question is pretty loaded*. Any reasonable person can see that. His background leads that reasonable person to infer that he's actually just making a point with the question. If he has a point to make, then let him make it with rationale and peer reviewed articles to back himself up. He can do that can't he?

Oh...

I'd suggest he can go on the list of folk who struggle with the difference between temperature and energy. Every thread throws up a few more.

I'm not a denier, I just think there is a reasonable question being posed. If the climate scientists can't answer it that's one thing. If they won't it's something else. So which one is it?

as an aside:
I was looking at some old local pictures in one of those photo books you get for towns. It showed the 1940 winter when they got 6' of snow. Then it was weather, now it would be climate change.

big n daft - do you think that we, as humans, should clean up our act a bit and stop making such a mess of the place?

The answer to that question is about 4 pages back

But we don't really want to do it, we don't tax aviation fuel, we put up wind turbines that destroy the deep peat carbon stores they are built on and never offset the embedded carbon to make them. We go for token visible gestures rather than getting to grips with the problem.

But it would be dull world if you couldn't change your iPhone every 18 months.

Unfortunately, a cursory google reveals a criticism of the paper here, which does not sound quite so rosy

This is unfortunately a perfect example of how the conversation gets detailed, either intentionally or by accident. On the one hand, you have a scientific paper published in one of the most respected peer reviewed outlets. On the other is a bloke's opinion published on the web.

The two are not of an equal weight. If the bloke who wrote the web page had a credible argument, he could raise it in a letter to the editor, and have it scrutinised properly.

This is unfortunately a perfect example of how the conversation gets detailed, either intentionally or by accident. On the one hand, you have a scientific paper published in one of the most respected peer reviewed outlets. On the other is a bloke's opinion published on the web.

The two are not of an equal weight. If the bloke who wrote the web page had a credible argument, he could raise it in a letter to the editor, and have it scrutinised properly.

I agree with what you said actually, and of course, the paper naturally carries massively more weight behind it. I didn't mean to derail anything, just saw the points and wondered if they were valid.

On the subject of credibility, this paper seems to be a reply to counter what the IPCC said shortly before (about revising their predictions are the models failed to match observations) which was where my original comment about models came from.

Retro83 the "criticism " does not ring true it describes the modeling of climate change as "fortuitously accurate " in predicting temperature to 2012. Ie correct but "I still think their wrong ", and in reallying on temperature alone ignores the first law of thermodynamics.

Ive a 1 litre car it does 65 mpg - apparently the carbon produced by making it was worse than running my old car for another 50 years
My house is uber insulated have new boiler etc still uses a gazillion carbons a year
Recycle loads and am mindful if waste , eating meat makes me a climate monster

Joolsburger run your old car don't eat meat buy energy from a renewable source, those ate the fatuous answers. Make it clear to politicians that green policies are important and just as we can all share the burden of economic cuts to save bankers we can all share the burden of trying to deal with climate change.